To add Ramirez Michael to your My Comics Page

Upgrade to a GoComics Pro account (only $19.99/yr) and have all of your
favorite comics emailed to you daily! You'll also get unlimited archive
access to decades of comics and an ad-free website and mobile app
experience.

I want the government funded, too. I also want a first class ticket to New Zealand, a 3 BR home overlooking the Rocky Mountains, and a new Corvette. But guess what: I can’t afford it, and I have to tone down my desires and expectations to meet my financial means. That’s what Congress (both parties) needs to man up and do for the federal government. And it ain’t gonna happen without negotiation.

So your point is that Democrats are saying," let the child with cancer die. We don’t care. We just want everything we want and we won’t let one child live until we get it..It’s apparent that you actually believe the lies you’ve been fed. I just wonder why people like you cannot accept empirical evidence as truth. We’ve always had right wing crazies in America, but why so much rage? The usual answer cites lies and propaganda from conservative PACs, think tanks, hate radio, FOX News, Christian right, etc, but with this President in particular, it’s gone over the top..There is no negotiating with terrorists and hostage takers, and that is who you are siding with.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –http://freebeacon.com/reid-why-would-we-want-to-help-one-kid-with-cancer/

GOP position: No funding for Obamacare.DNC position: Funding for EVERYTHING or nothing.

Why is the only the GOP position described as extremist? Why is it that the only “solution” is for the GOP to cave on ALL its demands? I understood that “negotiation” meant each side needs to give in a little.

Good to see you again Doc. I enjoy the fact that you post questions instead of rants; I missed chatting with you on other subjects.

I will answer your question with another question. Why is it our responsibility to pay for that cancer treatment? Not to be too Orwellian, but why do I have to care about some child who is hundreds or thousands of miles away? They have parents, don’t they?

That being said, I feel it is our moral obligation to care for the sick and downtrodden. The problem is where moral intersects with financial. It sure as hell isn’t my financial obligation to care for the sick and downtrodden. And I think that’s where we’re running into the gridlock in Washington.

On the Republican side of things, all posturing and preening aside, they are saying people don’t want this, and we can’t afford it. It being the PPACA. And come tax time 2014, when the penalties are starting to come out of people’s taxes because they aren’t carrying insurance… you’ll see even more unpopularity. So they are placing the popular opinion that we shouldn’t have to have insurance, and many people like me who feel we shouldn’t have to pay for it. Don’t feed the bears animals applies here. It’s perceived as a heartless position, but it’s the most viable solution for the longevity of the organism (The US Populace).

On the Democrat side of things, again posturing and preening aside, they feel that morally we have to provide this for people regardless of the cost. They feel that a healthy society is more productive, and we owe this to everyone. They look at models across the ocean and even to the north and say, “It works there, why not here?” You and I have chatted on this in the past.

So how do we bridge the gulf between these two very diametrically opposed positions? Is there a solution that keeps us morally satisfied while financially secure? Honestly, I don’t think so.

It’s like living in a house with someone who loves to spend and who loves to save. They will ALWAYS be arguing over money. If the couple survives the test of time, it’s usually because both people come to an agreement.

My wife and I are in that boat. She loves to spend, I love to save. So what do I do? I give her a chunk of cash that’s hers to fritter away as she pleases, and the rest is saved. And we have been together for 13 years now.

But what’s been happening in Congress is like having them so entrenched that each person refuses to give. I will only save, and I will only spend cannot survive. Or worse yet, the I will only saves gives to compromise, and the I will only spend person ends up spending more. That is what we’ve been seeing these last 5 years.

This shutdown is simply this entire situation coming to a head. There’s no money left in the checking account, we have all our credit cards maxed out, we’re down to Ramen noodles, and the “I want to spend” person is still demanding steak and lobster. Who here is being selfish? And why is the person saying, “You can’t have steak and lobster” being demonized?

Would ANY of our households survive using the financial shenanigans going on in Washington?

About Michael Ramirez

"Editorial cartoons should be smart and substantive, provocative and informative. They should stir passions and deep emotions. Editorial cartoons should be the catalyst for thought, and frankly speaking, if you can make politicians think, that is an accomplishment in itself."